Libertarians are the atheists of the political world, in that many of them will loudly and frequently tell you they are that thing, but a very small percentage of them -- a miniscule amount, really -- actually know what being that thing means. Most of them have chosen to self-label as a reaction to something else, not out of conscious selection, and almost none of them can identify more than the most patently obvious truisms about their "chosen" belief system. They know what they've been told, or what they've read about being told, and that's about it.

cybrwzrd:In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another.

You mean like blowing up a housing project or destroying civilization or raping women as a token of divine selfishness?

Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand and Objectivism:

What Ayn Rand did was simplify a complex network of economic theories, ideas, practices and human motives and constructed a mono-dimensional faux-reality as a vehicle to push her pulp. Then she filled it full of cardboard cutout characters and mary sue ubermensches who don't talk but lecture for tedious pages about why the rich and powerful have divine right to being rich and powerful. And of course things play out exactly the way her philosophy says because she's the author and she controls the farking outcome. In clear violation of every standard of ethics, politics, economics, reality, life, human nature, philosophy, and farking national train corporation management. It's dishonest, and it's wrong.

As an example of how wildly skewed her understanding of reality really was, just looked at how she twisted the Robin Hood fable. She called him the most evil fairytale hero in history because he stole from the producers to give to the moochers. On the contrary, Robin actually stole the people's taxes from the oppressive government and gave them back to the their rightful owners. He should be a Tea Party icon. I don't understand why she didn't look this up thoroughly enough. It was a bad allegory because it's heavily dependent on point of view.

The book's premise is ridiculous because NO ONE is so important that they think they can destroy the world by retreating from it. Nature abhors a vacuum. Everything important and meaningful that has ever been created -- from thoughts to ideas to products to technology to companies -- is instantly taught, copied, and spread around, effectively building an organic backup system in case the original fails or dies (or retreats to Galt's Gulch). No one is the sole arbiter of anything. No one has a privileged position on humanity's future. To rely on a single source for progress and advancement is dangerous to a functioning system. True stability means constant evolving contingencies, backup plans, and millions of redundancies. Society can't fail because one man lost his motor car plans in a factory. Everyone is replaceable. Even John Galt.

But the worst thing about Ayn Rand is her absolutism. She always makes sweeping, absolute statements like "Capitalism is an end in itself".....no its not. There is no rational, logical, or verifiable proven instance that justifies such a statement. For starters, it's wrong. Capitalism is not an end, it is a means to improve the quality of life. It is a tool. It is a process. And despite what she might think, freedom is not defined in terms of economic productivity. Building a house does not make one happy. Living in one does. Bread isn't beneficial to anyone. Eating it is.

Living things do not live for themselves. Preservation of the self is a cherished tenet, but preservation of the species is equally as cherishable (and, depending on the circumstances, will frequently trump the former), and the concept of family and community is stronger in most societies than the concept of individualism. This is not brainwashing, this is not state-mandated. People do this because they prefer to do this, it is something inescapable and ingrained, and as far as we are concerned it is the moral, ethical, and empirical reality of our species. But Rand wouldn't know this because she never had any children herself and her husband spent their entire marriage drinking himself into a stupor and staying away from her. This is why Objectivism finds the most favor among asocial autistics and aspies who may be brilliant intellectuals but can't fathom the purpose behind relationships and peer bonding. There is another word for these people: Sociopaths.

Man is not a rational animal. Man is an emotional animal. Man is not an individual animal nor is he a social animal. Man is a TRIBAL animal. These are not belief structures. They are physical realities that have defined the evolution of our species.

Ayn Rand does not encourage you to think for yourself. She encourages you to think about her. Her philosophy is attractive to people for the wrong reasons. Most of them are drawn to the characters in her books and use that as justification for promoting her philosophy. But when people are driven by aesthetic (rather than rational) criteria, it's impossible to reason with them in terms of formal argumentation hence the famed "Randroid syndrome".

The authoress herself knew little about reason and even less about philosophy. She admitted she barely read anyone, which is why Objectivism sounds a bit like the idealism of Nietzsche, with maybe a bit of Kant and Bernard Shaw. She once claimed that the only book on philosophy she read was by Aristotle, which explains her appeal to his logical absolutes, particularly the first one: the Law of Identity (ie: A is A).

Objective morality can't exist without subjective content, and more and more of her pseudo-philosophy is being unraveled by such stark and painfully obvious contradictions, though I guess at the time no one had the guts to tell her because she was so damn intimidating and.........what's the word she loved to use? ah yes: "insolent".

It seems that Objectivists, following the lead of Rand, spend more of their time denouncing detractors than actually being the highly-enlightened, individualistic rational beings that they think they are.

3 problems with Objectivists:

1) Objectivists are not highly-enlightened. It's a lazy philosophy, so it attracts lazy intellectuals, aka people who haven't read widely in the field which is what makes Rand's work so impressionable.2) They are not individualists. Rand's cult was even called "the Collective", and to speak out of line or against the party line was extremely frowned upon (and she burn noticed her anointed successor, Nathanial Branden, because he refused to sleep with her anymore)3) They are hardly rational, since their defence of the philosophy and attacks of dissenters normally comes in a high-pitched shrill and antagonistic, standoff-ish mental bullying

Organized Objectivism has some cult-like tendencies creepier than Scientology. It's ironic that Rand had more in common with Josef Stalin than anyone else, someone who's ideals she spent the better part of her life denouncing but who's cult of personality she emulated to a T. Today, most Objectivists are simply people who are incapable of thinking for themselves, letting only the bitter memory of the late Ayn Rand make decisions for them.

But essentially, what Rand did was what all pop philosophers do: Tell rich and powerful people what they want to hear (ie: that they have a noble reason to be self-righteous assholes).

cybrwzrd:Both of Rand's heroes were blue collar workers, both had to fight against oppressive business and political climates that wanted to profit off of their hard work.

Not quite. Reardon is the only rich and powerful guy who is self-made. Wyatt is rich and powerful and old money, D'Anconia is rich and powerful and old money, James Taggert is ONLY rich and powerful because his sister, Dagny, is rich and powerful but they are old money, Judge Naragansett was rich and powerful, the composer guy (can't remember his name, running off memory) was rich and powerful, the danish pirate was rich and powerful.... and everyone who wasn't rich and powerful in Galt's Gulch was either rich and powerful at one point in their lives and threw it all away to make some sort of statement, or chose not to seek riches because they preferred not to gift society their talents, like Owen Kellogg, the titular John Galt, and that motherfarker in the diner who made the BEST TASTING BURGER OF ALL TIME because Objectivists are champions at everything they do, even being short order cooks at truckstop diners.

The Bob the Angry Flower cartoon nails the exact problem with an Objectivist Universe: No one in the post-apocalyptic society really could really do any of the real gruntwork that makes society function -- the farmers and garbage crews and janitors and sewage cleaners and miners and lumberjacks and oil workers and all the dirty, disgusting jobs that none of them knew how to do and didn't have the strength to do anyway. Sure, some of them ran some industrial companies, but in truth the builders and geniuses of the world need a disposable slave class to do the work that is too demanding and too hazardous, otherwise they wouldn't have the time to do their genius things because all their waking energy is spent on procuring their next meal.

This is an important point that Objectivists continuously fail to understand, so let me say this: In order for any apex civilization to pursue higher qualities like art and science, it must first employ an underclass to take care of it, freeing up time to engage in these high pursuits. In order to obtain such an underclass, it must invade its neighbors. In order to invade its neighbors, it must have a really good army. No high civilization is ever benign - every one celebrates its noble accomplishments on the backs of cheap labor exploited by tyrannies of chauvinistic patriarchies, and an Objectivist society that doesn't do this will not have the time or the power to accomplish anything at all. The fruits of man's genius will be devoured by manual labor.

This is why the Objectivist platitude of "doing whatever you want so long as it does not harm another" is an outright bold-faced lie, especially in a system as globally integrated as ours is.

/I read Atlas Shrugged in its entirety while sitting on the can. It took me 2.5 years to use all the pages.//The Atlas Shrugged movie is just like the book in that you can skip forward 10 minutes and the same person is still talking.

Pocket Ninja:Libertarians are the atheists Christians of the political world, in that many of them will loudly and frequently tell you they are that thing, but a very small percentage of them -- a miniscule amount, really -- actually know what being that thing means. Most of them have chosen to self-label as a reaction to something else, not out of conscious selection, and almost none of them can identify more than the most patently obvious truisms about their "chosen" belief system. They know what they've been told, or what they've read about being told, and that's about it.

GRUNG LIKE STONE BUTTS ME NO CAN LIECRO-MAGNON NO CAN DENYWHEN FEMALE WALK WITH BLOBBY SAGGY WAISTAND TWO BOULDERS IN GRUNG FACEME START DROOLIN' AND ME NO FOOLIN'THAT BUTT BEST IN WHOLE ACHEULEANME WANT GIVE YOU A LIFTAND CARVE YOU PETROGLYPHNEANDERTALS CALLED ME SICKBUT THAT BUTT YOU GOT'S PALEOLITHIC!

mrshowrules:is an ideal of the greedy and self serving suggesting that left to their own, people will look after each other

Well they would, because most people would group together socially and form an organization. That organization would then pick leaders, and those leaders would come up with some form of charter, so everyone has the same rules. Then they'd pick people to argue over and interpret those rules, and form another group to decide new rules as necessary for unforseen issues. Eventually, each group's organization would decide it's better if multiple groups create one, larger overseeing body so that multiple groups have the same rules and can resolve disputes between each other.

Libertarianism is the most misunderstood of all political philosophies. It has more in common with Thomas Jefferson than any current political ideology: Individualism, personal accountability, enterprise and discovery. What conservatism and liberalism have discarded in their race to bury the age of enlightenment, libertarianism seeks to restore. The problem is people need such an affront to care that we are lead into the dark recesses by both the progressives and the conservatives.

It's funny he goes "It can never work" and then ignores that's the argument he is actually making.

But the other problem with his argument is the "Most" libertarian countries, also suck.

Here is the bullshiat:

A)

Non-Libertarian: Look these countries are the most "libertarian" in the world and they are shiatholes

Libertarian: OH! that's only because they are not LIBERTARIAN ENOUGH!

B)Non-Libertarian: Since no countries are "libertarian enough" doesn't mean that it's an impossible ideal?

Libertarian: No it's not it' just a goal.

You can't have it both ways!!

Either A) You can use countries that have weak central governments that are horrible as an example of Libertarian policesOr B) You can say the true ideals of libertarianism are too impossible to achieve in reality.

But what libertarians are trying to do is say some countries are "not libertarian enough" when you want to show how bad libertarianism policies are, but then when you want to show that libertarianism is an unworkable system the same countries magically become "libertarian enough".

If you think idealistic principals can't ever work in reality stop trying to farking make them reality then!!!

lockers:Libertarianism is the most misunderstood of all political philosophies. It has more in common with Thomas Jefferson than any current political ideology: Individualism, personal accountability, enterprise and discovery. What conservatism and liberalism have discarded in their race to bury the age of enlightenment, libertarianism seeks to restore. The problem is people need such an affront to care that we are lead into the dark recesses by both the progressives and the conservatives.

Thomas Jefferson specifically turned "Life, Liberty and Property" into "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."That would be a burning-at-the-stake level offense to most self-identified libertarians today.

Libertarianism (like conservatism) wholly rejects notions of egalitarianism, which is why it will always be a right-wing philosophy no matter how many "compases" try to put on the opposite side of authoritarianism.

GROG BELIEVES MONKEYS NEED TO PULL THEMSELVES UP EVOLUTIONARY LADDER BY THEIR OWN BOOT STRAPS, ONCE THEY FORMULATE THE NECESSARY LANGUAGE AND TOOLMAKING ABILITIES TO MAKE OWN BOOTS. GROG WORKED HARD FOR BOOTS AND NO ONE GAVE GROG LANGUAGE OR TOOLS.

Aldon:I could ask 100 libertarians (I feel like I have) what libertarians stand for and I will get 100 answers. Of course almost all ideologies overlap in some way, so I use your own description of libertarianism, not mine, and ask questions like why do you list liberal items and few if any conservative items yet vote conservative? All I can deal with logically is the fact that most libertarians in the last few years identify with far right Conservatives more than they do with Moderates or Liberals.

It is the same as when I ask a libertarian to identify a more economically libertarian (for a reasonable amount of time) modern country that is somewhere they wouldn't mind living. If they answer at all they answer with a country that has universal or public healthcare. The same person will say that Obamacare (that hasn't even been mostly implemented yet) was making us a socialist country!

I didn't offer a description of Libertarianism in this thread. I picked elements that had intersection with some mainstream Liberal positions to prove the point that you can't say "a partway implementation of Libertarianism would kill millions." Because the poster was liberal, one could just pick the parts that overlapped to show that was an incorrect statement. If I thought the poster was conservative, I would pick different parts.

I answered the second paragraph elsewhere. I think it's a bad question, and here is why. Lets say hypothetically I hold one single ideology -- corruption in government is bad. I don't about anything else, this is my ideology. You could ask me to identity a modern country somewhere that isn't corrupt to "prove" that it's a bad ideology... because if corruption is so bad, why are all governments corrupt?! See, that doesn't work.

On Obamacare: it's not a socialist policy, this is a misconception. Even from a libertarian standpoint, Obamacare is far worse than state healthcare... because state healthcare is government providing a service. Governments already do this, we're just arguing which services they should and shouldn't provide. Obamacare is a handout to insurance companies, and a handout to the pharmaceutical companies. Corporate handouts are worse than unnecessary government services. In fact I've argued that what Obama should have done is just implemented state healthcare, because that would be preferable I think to everyone (other than lobbyists). But Obama isn't really a liberal, he lets the highest bidder write policy... same as Bush.

Also want to point out that Libertarianism covers a wide range of viewpoints, and even within a single viewpoint some issues can be more important than others. It's possible to have a country that has more economic liberty than the US in every way, except it has state-run healthcare. The policy of every government is complex, and you're never going to agree 100%. So it's fine to say "we should be more like X country" even if X country also does things you disagree with.

One thing I love about this thread is how people will add 1 to the total amount of comments to express their disgust that the comment count is so high. Also, anyone who thinks this thread is more about libertarianism vs reality than it is about spontaneous group caveman language is probably not looking carefully enough at the Fark demographic.

cybrwzrd:He didn't harm anyone by blowing it up... The building was empty and noone was hurt.

Yes he did, he harmed the property owners, the builders, the contractors, the insurance doods, the marketers and realtors and people who had invested money into the project! That's their farking paycheck, and now things are tied up in courts and legal battles for years and their families are going to suffer because the project they worked so hard on was destroyed by a disgruntled architect. Roark is a god damn asshole. His actions harmed thousands of people.

cybrwzrd:Actually, Roark had a sound reason to blow up the housing development. He designed a self sustaining building, but due to politics it was corrupted to the point of becoming an absurb mockery of itself. He didn't blow it up because of what it was to be used for. He blew it up because it was not his design.

Irrespective, it still makes him a hypocrite champion of Objectivist doctrine.

cybrwzrd:You obviously have never read any of the fiction or the books surrounding Objectivism

I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and the Virtue of Selfishness. That's how I know her so well -- even better than you. You think I cribbed all that shiat I wrote above from Wikipedia or something? ....do a search, I've been posting in Fark Objectivism threads for years.

cybrwzrd:I just think that you should maybe focus your vitriol on the idiots who have taken the Objectivist philosophy and corrupted it instead of the philosophy itself.

Like who, Leonard Peikoff or Alan Greenspan? ...or Ayn Rand herself?

Listen: She was damaged goods, dude. Those mean ole Bolsheviks took her daddy's business and robbed her of the privilege and position she most undoubtedly deserved in Russian society and she spent the rest of her life whining about it. She was an absolutely despicable person according to EVERYONE who ever had the misfortune of working with or even meeting her, indomitably defiant, obscenely difficult, and was known to completely suck the life out of a room. She never smiled or laughed, she abhorred small talk, and she would often approach strangers with random questions like "Tell me about your premises." She just didn't get people -- she was a pure autistic in every sense of the meaning. And her problem with her philosophy was, like all philosophers, she assumed that everyone thinks like her, or ought to.

She was wrong. Horribly, depressingly, ridiculously wrong.

/And now, a fun Ayn Rand fact:

"Suppose you are a nice family of Russian Jewish immigrants living in Chicago in the 1920s. Suppose you get a frantic letter from some distant cousin in Russia, begging for help because their daughter is a stubborn loudmouth who will certainly be killed if she stays in the country for much longer. Suppose you happily provide the necessary affidavit of support for a visa, promise her a job in your family business, and open your home-a five-room apartment already so crowded that the cousin will have to sleep on a cot in the dining room-to her for six months.

Now suppose your cousin keeps everyone else in the house up all night, every night, with her incessant typing (which you translate into English for her) or her long baths that use up all the hot water (although she will later abandon this practice). Suppose that during the day, while you are faint from sleep deprivation, your cousin roams the apartment singing "I'm Sitting on Top of the World" as loudly as she can. Suppose she declines to speak to you because your conversation topics don't "interest me." Suppose she leans on you to arrange an extension of her visa, borrows a bunch of money from you to move to Hollywood, and promises to buy you a "mink coat and a Rolls-Royce" when she makes it big.

You might, then, be forgiven for holding a grudge when your cousin becomes wealthy and famous and she neither buys you anything nor pays you back the money she borrowed. Instead, all you get are copies of some ponderous novels, tickets to a couple of revolting lectures, and the pleasure of learning, in many interviews, that your cousin "had no family in America" and that "nobody helped [her]" when she immigrated."

SIT AND LISTEN FOR ELDER TALETHIS STORY ABOUT GRUNG LIFE CHANGEPLACE WHERE SUN SET IN LAND OF BROTHERS WHERE GRUNG BORNSPENT MANY SUNS THROWING ROCK THROUGH CIRCLEBUT OTHER TRIBE CAUSE PROBLEM, STEAL ROCK, EAT ALL BERRIESSHE-ELDER SENT GRUNG TO SISTER-SHE-ELDER AT TAR PITSGRUNG SCREECH AND MAMMOTH-RIDE COMEDANGLY METAL PLATE HANG FROM TAILDANGLY DEAD SQUIRREL HANG FROM EARSSTRANGE MAMMOTH BUT GRUNG RIDE ANYWAYWE GO TO TAR PITSGRUNG GET THERE AT SUNSET, TELL MAMMOTH HE STINKYFIND FANCY ROOM NEAR TAR PIT CAVESIT DOWN AND AM CALLED NEW HE-ELDER OF TAR PIT

RobertBruce:InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost. The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density. I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

Same as now, except without laws other than those that protect body and property.

So basically a 3rd world shiate hole? Gotcha.

What's your alternative:?

How about the opposite of Calcutta? Ever been there? You would love it.

No stupid government forcing you to pay for things like community housing, so the poor just sleep and shiat in the streets literally turning the entire city into a gigantic cesspool. No Obamacare, so the sick and dying just decompose out in the sun. No public policy, so malaria and AIDS just runs rampant. No major public projects, so limited public transportation leaving 15 million people living in a congested polluted mess.

Just everyone out there living their own lives, just totally free from the tyranny of government thugs.

cybrwzrd:In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another

The trouble is that it's nothing more than a trite platitude that really means absolutely nothing. Most of the time people don't realize how their actions hurt others until the shiat hits the fan. You want to build a swimming pool. You stomp up and down that city has zoning laws that you have to follow, and that it's your property and you should do whatever you damn well feel like. Great philosophy, until you built a cheap swimming pool that leaks and contaminates all your neighbor's property and water supply.

The bottomline is society in order to function properly needs things that are not necessarily profitable to properly function, and therefore we can't depend on private enterprises to provide them in lieu of government. It's not unlike having roommates. The "You do your thing, and I'll do mine" philosophy can works well when you live by yourself or maybe have one or two roommates. When you're sharing a house with 20 people, you better have some house rules in place or else it's going to turn into a zoo.

1) It exists at the upper echelon of the wealthy. No matter what country they come from, Sweden, China, USA, Mexico, they all compete generally "outside of the control of any specific government."

2) It exists at a level below the government's reach (remember we are talking about rules other than the ones preventing hurting other people etc). There are people living day to day without any concern for the government all over the world, including the US. You can shop for many goods on the black market, or maybe sometimes pay a little sales tax in some places, but that is about it. (Think about illegal immigrants in this sense)

Point is, that it is really only the middle class that is trapped by, gets the benefits of, and supports a government. Everybody else could give a flying f*ck.

The real issue that nobody ever seams to talk about (maybe because it is defeatist) is that there are generally two types of people (based on raw human nature) 1) those that will always seeks out and use power to their advantage, and 2) those that don't have power, either through choice or poor circumstances.

Second, there will always be a consolidation of power towards the first group. It doesn't matter if it is via corporations in a purely capitalist society or the legislature in a socialist society. Powerful people will take over the most powerful positions and use them to their own benefit. Libertarianism is the only ideal that at least attempts to give the power back to every individual, such that it is the individual's fault if it is lost or given up.

And no, Somalia is not a libertarian lifestyle, it is ruled by warlords. Warlords have the power not the greater population of individuals. Like I said, there will always be a consolidation of power towards the powerful, even under a libertarianism effort.

I am pretty sure that a nation run on libertarian ideals would lead to warlords, rule by Mafia or somewhere in between.

Somebody will always come along and take the reins. I would rather have a halfway-honest government (ours is, compared to some other countries) dominating me than endure warlord rape and pillage, or Mafia shakedowns.

Gulper Eel - You're also not going to get screwed if you realize that certain aspects of your life are best controlled by yourself, even if it's a pain in the ass to do so at the time. I was flipping through a recent Consumer Reports (no can find linky) piece on health care that stated 70% of our health care costs are due to our own shiatty choices. It's not the government's fault or Monsanto's fault or anybody's fault but our own if we are unwilling to govern our own choices. We eat poorly, we don't exercise,

This line has made me laugh since 2011 when, after a healthy home-cooked meal and out for a healthywalk after dinner I was hit by an uninsured teenage driver - the result was 90% of my out of pockethealth-care costs for the previous FIVE years

IRQ12:You may be right. If the "social connotation" is: "I'm afraid of saying I am an atheist or libertarian because almost every single one I have ever heard from is an obnoxious asshole who really has no clue of what they are talking about and most people I meet think the same, regardless of their beliefs."

You know why ALL atheists seem so offensive? It's not their behavior. It's because to Christians, their lack of belief is an affront- their existence is inherently offensive. So Christians attempt to skew the perceptions of everyone around them so that any behavior by atheists other than "pretending not to exist" is aggressive. Congrats. You fell for it.

mrshowrules:is an ideal of the greedy and self serving suggesting that left to their own, people will look after each other

hinten:Liberterianism would work just fine if everyone just followed the rules.

Pretty much nailed it in the first two.

It's ironic that LIbertarianism - which is the polar opposite of Communism - has so much in common with it, especially in it's failings.

- Both are naive, utopanist philosophies that are superficially appealing but can't function in the real world at a national scale- Both are unworkable because they ignore or deny basic human psychology- Both have been co-opted and transformed into something downright evil (Communism -> Stalinism, Libertarinism -> objectivism / neo-confederatism)

Communism is "we're all in this together" taken to ridiculous extremes.Libertarianism is "what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine" taken to ridiculous extremes.

AFTER CAVE AND CAVE-NEXT-DOOR HIT BY BIG ROCKS THROWN BY TRIBE ACROSS SAND CAVEMEN EXPECT BIG CAVE KNOW ALL AND KEEP SAFE FROM ALL TRIBE. CAVEMAN NEED LEARN BIG CAVE EITHER KNOW ALL OR CAVEMAN KEEP SECRETS IN CAVE. GROND AM SAY THIS ALL TIME, BUT CAVEMEN JUST ACCUSE GROND OF LOVING TRIBE ACROSS SAND. LOOK LIKE PELT ON OTHER SHOULDER NOW.

mrshowrules:verbaltoxin: mrshowrules: is an ideal of the greedy and self serving suggesting that left to their own, people will look after each other

Well they would, because most people would group together socially and form an organization. That organization would then pick leaders, and those leaders would come up with some form of charter, so everyone has the same rules. Then they'd pick people to argue over and interpret those rules, and form another group to decide new rules as necessary for unforseen issues. Eventually, each group's organization would decide it's better if multiple groups create one, larger overseeing body so that multiple groups have the same rules and can resolve disputes between each other.

That, or it just becomes a hellscape of torture, rape diseases, famine and murder. It really can go either way.

There are many failed states where this occurred, but they didn't set out to be libertarian societies in the Western world. I'm saying in our society, if we tried to have libertarianism, we'd end up right back where we are now, eventually.

lockers:Libertarianism is the most misunderstood of all political philosophies. It has more in common with Thomas Jefferson than any current political ideology: Individualism, personal accountability, enterprise and discovery. What conservatism and liberalism have discarded in their race to bury the age of enlightenment, libertarianism seeks to restore. The problem is people need such an affront to care that we are lead into the dark recesses by both the progressives and the conservatives.

BROK HELP UGG. BROK PACKAGE MANY CAVE INTO CONSTRUCT BROK CALL CREDIT ROCK SWAP. VERY SIMPLE. UGG AND CAVE OWNER PAY BROK ROCKS, IF CAVE COLLAPSE THEN BROK STILL KEEPS ROCKS AND TAKE YOUR WOMAN IF STILL ALIVE. IT VERY COMPLICATED. SIGN HERE. YOU NOT GO BROKE WITH BROK.

m00:1) 5) 7) Rand Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian. I agree with ComaLite J's definition, and Rand Paul's policies contradict this.

Thanks!

cybrwzrd:I agree with you, except I do not think that objectivism is a pro corporatism philosophy. It has been hijacked tho by those type of people - Greenspan included.

http://youtu.be/CeTfUot51io?t=4m6s

This is a video of Rand clearly dismissing corporatism and cronyism.

I got attacked in this thread for saying that I agree with certain aspects of objectivism, even though I said that I am not an objectivist now, so I am sure I will be attacked for this as well.

Look, I am for universal health care and a strong social safety net. I don't think the strong have the right to trample the rights of the weak.

Most libertarians hate those things- but that is because they do not believe in equality. I believe in limited government still. So do most progressives. Government is not a tool for the strong to use to oppress the weak. It is a tool to make the weak equal to the strong. Equality does not exist without limiting the power of the majority or the powerful.

I'll check that video out when I get a chance. Thanks!

Ishkur:COMALite J: the whole concept of "States' Rights" is a false concept right from the get-go. States don't have Rights. Any Rights. Neither does the Federal Government. Only Natural Persons (individually or collectively as "the People") have, or can have, Rights!

No one has any Rights.

Rights do not exist. You can only do things so long as others let you.

The Declaration of Independence calls the existence of the Inherent ("endowed by their Creator") and Inalienable Rights of Personhood a "self-evident" "Truth." A self-evident truth is also known as an axiom. In any system of logic, there must be one or more axioms which are assumed to be true without proof, as self-evident truths, to be used as starting premises in subsequent chains or logical reasoning. The axioms themselves form the foundation of the system of logic.

I would hold that to be an American citizen and participate in its society and government, one should accept its axioms, otherwise one is rejecting the whole basis, the foundation, of the very existence of this nation, and may truly be happier elsewhere in a nation based on different axioms that one can accept.

Indeed, the "inherent and inalienable" part is part and parcel of the very definition of the term "Rights" as understood by Jefferson and other Founders and Framers. If someone gives them to you or allows you to exercise certain liberties, then they aren't Rights at all. They're Powers or Privileges. Persons and governments can have Powers and privileges (Tenth Amendment), but only Persons have, or can have, Rights (Ninth Amendment).

Is the idea that each person should have the right to make their own decisions and choices, unless they cause harm to others, a bad thing?

The thread is mostly dead, so I suppose I can be a little bit serious. Ideals are not necessarily bad in their own right. The problem with any political (or religious, or economic, or etc.) ideal arises from the fact that it is based on a desire for the world to be other than it is. The libertarian ideal is predicated on the belief (first) that all humans are equally capable of taking care of their own interests, (second,) that all humans are capable of determining when they are causing harm to others (and third), that all humans are sufficiently compassionate that they would refrain from causing harm if they knew about the consequences of their actions.

The first assumption is contradicted by the evidence. There are people who are simply not intellectually or physically capable of providing for themselves. People with physical handicaps or severe injuries cannot "go it alone" and expect to survive. The third assumption is contradicted by the existence of sociopaths. While rare, they do exist, and the libertarian ideal that people would avoid harming others by choice simply can't account for them.

The second assumption is the big one. In a simple agrarian or hunter/gatherer society, an individual's actions typically have only local consequences, so we see the effects of our actions on our neighbors. In a society like that, individuals might have a close enough approximation to "perfect knowledge" of the consequences of their actions to actually be able to make the right decision. However, in an industrialized economy, that degree of knowledge is simply not possible.

An example I used last time the subject came up is the effects of logging on salmon fisheries. Here in the Pacific Northwest, salmon spawn in small rivers, far inland, but when the spawn reach adulthood, they migrate hundreds of miles to the ocean, where they are caught by fishermen. The spawning streams require forest cover in order to remain cool and clear, for nutrients to grow for the fry to eat until they reach 1 to 3 years old and migrate out to sea. It's in the best interest of the fishermen that the forests around those streams be left un-cut. However, the fishermen live hundreds of miles away, and the people who live close to the streams have competing interests. It is in their interest that the forests are cut down, first to sell the lumber, and second, to expand farmland to feed the local population.

The people who live near the stream will certainly want to cooperate with their neighbors, and clearing the forest is in their best interest and in the best interest of everyone they know. However, it has a devastating effect on the success of the fishermen who live far away and who are unknown to the farmers. The farmers and fishermen never meet each other, so the ideal of "compassion" is ruled out just by the fact of distance, but their actions have profound effects on each other's success. When one's actions have non-local effects, it is simply not possible for an individual to have the kind of knowledge of the consequences that would allow him/her to make an informed decision about whether or not s/he was harming someone else. In the absence of that type of information, the ideal "make your own choices unless it harms someone else" is simply impossible.

The problem is what economists call "the Tragedy of the Commons." It is in the best interest of all that shared resources not be depleted, but it is in the best interest of each rational actor to act according to his/her own self-interest to use as much of the shared resources for personal gain as possible.

So far, the only way humans have found to protect the commons is the institution of a centralized decision-making authority that is socially recognized as having the legitimate power to limit people's choices (i.e. a government that can restrict individual rights). The only alternative I can imagine would require us to change human nature to fit the ideal, rather than adjusting the ideal to fit human nature.

That's the practical problem with ideals. What seems perfectly reasonable on paper doesn't always correspond to the world around us.

/In seriousness: THIS is why I keep coming back here, y'all are nuts and goofs, but all right folks. Thanks for this: we needed it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you are perhaps a smelly, ill tempered, and sometimes inappropriate bunch of ingrates, asshats, pervs and malcontents, but that's why I like y'all.

I appreciate the fact that the greened link was so inanely stupid, it made more sense to devolve into neolithic-speak to mock it.

I wish I could've thrown in on this thread earlier but my crazy day at work got in the way. Ah well, I got a few laughs reading back .Thanks guys. :D

IF YOU HAVE MATE PROBLEMS OOK FEEL BAD FOR YOU YOUNG ONE OOK HAVE 99 PROBLEMS, ANGRY WOMAN NOT ONEOOK GOT ROCK PATROL OUT ON AXE PATROL TRYING TO MAKE SURE OOK'S CAIRN IS CLOSED CAVE CRITICS SAY OOK IS "ROCKS PELTS MATES" OOK FROM THE CAVE, WHAT STUPID FACTS YOU STATE IF YOU GREW UP WITH HOLES IN THE SOLES OF YOUR TOES YOU'D CELEBRATE THE MINUTE YOU CAN EAT ROASTED MOLES OOK LIKE fark CRITICS YOU CAN KISS OOK'S ASSHOLE IF YOU DON'T LIKE LYRICS YOU CAN WAIT TILL IT OVER GOT MEAT WITH HOWLER CHIEFS IF OOK DON'T SING THEY SHOW THEY DON'T SING OOK'shiatS WELL OOK DON'T GIVE A shiat SO RAP CAVE ETCHINGS TRY AND USE MY HAIRY ASS SO TRADERS CAN GIVE ETCHERS MORE ROCKS FOR ADS...MATERS OOK DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU TAKE OOK AS OR UNDERSTAND SMART THAT OOK HAS OOK FROM NAKED TO RAGS CAVEMAN OOK AIN'T DUMB OOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE

IF YOU HAVE CAVEGIRL PROBLEMS OOK FEELS BAD FOR YOU YOUNG ONEOOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE

THE YEAR IS... WHAT IS YEAR? OOK'S SACK IS RAW,LOOK BEHIND IT IS TRIBE ELDERS farkIN LAW,OOK GOT TWO CHOICES YALL PULL OVER MY DINOSAUROR BOUNCE ON THE DOUBLE PUT THE DINO LEGS TO THE FLOORNOW OOK AIN'T TRYING TO SEE NO VALLEY CHASE WITH OOKPLUS OOK HAVE A FEW ROCKS, OOK CAN FIGHT THESE MOOKS,SO OOK PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROADAND OOK HEARD "YOUNGLING DO YOU KNOW WHY STOPPING YOU FOR?"CAUSE OOK YOUNG AND OOK CRO-MAGNON AND OOK'S BROW REAL LOW?DO OOK LOOK LIKE WIZARD, OOK DON'T KNOW!AM OOK UNDER ARREST OR SHOULD OOK GUESS SOME MORE?"WELL YOU WAS DOING FIVE IN A PLACE THAT'S FOURDINO RIDER BADGE AND REGISTRATION AND STEP OFF THE DINOSAURARE YOU CARRYING AXE I KNOW A LOT OF YOU ARE"OOK AIN'T STEPPING OUT OF shiat, OOK'S THINGS ARE LEGIT"DO YOU MIND IF ME LOOK AROUND YOUR DINOSAUR A LITTLE BIT?"WELL OOK'S SACK IS TIED UP SO IS OOK'S OTHER SACKAND OOK KNOW TRIBE'S CODE, SO YOU GOING TO NEED ELDER'S PERMISSION FOR THAT"AREN'T YOU SHARP AS A THORN SOME TYPE OF ARGUER OR SOMETHING?"OR SOMEBODY IMPORTANT OR SOMETHING?"NAH OOK AIN'T PASSED ELDER TEST BUT OOK KNOW A LITTLE BITENOUGH THAT YOU WON'T TABOO BY SEARCHING OOK'S shiat"WE'LL SEE HOW SMART YOU ARE WHEN WOLFDOGS COME"OOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONEHIT OOK!

NOW ONCE UPON A MOON NOT LONG AGOA CAVEMAN LIKE OOK HAD TO STRONG ARM A CAVEHOTHIS IS NOT CAVEHOE LIKE IN SENSE OF HAVING A WETHOLEBUT A WETHOLE HAVING NO SKY-CHIEF PUNISHED SENSE, TRY AND PUSH MEOOK TRY TO IGNORE HIM AND TALK TO GREAT SKY CHIEFPRAY FOR HIM, SOME FOOLS JUST LOVE TO MAKE GRIEF,YOU KNOW THE TYPE LOUD AS AN AVALANCHEBUT WOULDN'T BUST A TWIG IN BIG FIGHT WITH BRANCHHE AND HIS BOYS GOING TO BE YAPPING TO CAVE CAPTAINAND THERE OOK GO TRAPPED IN THE SHAME CAVE AGAINBACK THROUGH CAVE SYSTEM WITH RIFF RAFF AGAINMUSHROOM FIENDS ON CAVE FLOOR SCRATCHING AGAINSMOKE SIGNALLERS WITH SMOKE BLANKETS SNAPPING THEMELDER TRIED TO GIVE A CAVEMAN THE SHAFT AGAINMANY PEBBLES NEEDED FOR BAIL CAUSE I'M CRO-MAGNONALL BECAUSE THIS FOOL WAS HARASSING THEMTRYING TO PLAY THE BOY LIKES HE WAS SUGAR CANE STEMBUT NOTHING SWEET ABOUT HOW I HOLD MY ROCKOOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS BEING FEMALE WOLFDOG OOK NOTHIT OOK

/In seriousness: THIS is why I keep coming back here, y'all are nuts and goofs, but all right folks. Thanks for this: we needed it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you are perhaps a smelly, ill tempered, and sometimes inappropriate bunch of ingrates, asshats, pervs and malcontents, but that's why I like y'all.

LORJ MAIN PROBLEM WITH LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT IS MARKET NO GOOD AT ADJUSTING NON-ROCK EXTERNALITIES. TRAGEDY OF COMMON CAVE REPEATS FROM MAXIMIZATION OF SHORT TERM ROCK PROFIT INSTEAD OF SUSTAINABLE ROCK DEVELOPMENT.

I was a libertarian until I realized that self-rule only really happens in groups. This led me to think that if another group of people is happy with their design of government, I don't care. Democracies and republics are attempts to allow people self-rule. I believe in both of those, but only if it's what the people want. Forcing democracy on people is just more tyranny. So go govern yourselves, people, and do your best. Don't govern me unless I like a favorable amount of the governance. Force and tyranny are the problem, and they're never worth the effort in the long run.

m00:mccallcl: Libertarian ideas are not worth dying for, and make no mistake: in order for them to be implemented even partway, millions would die.

A "partway" implementation of Libertarian ideas might be:

1) equalize wage tax and capital gains, remove all loopholes especially of the corporate variety. Make it easier to start a small business.2) No domestic spying - enshrine privacy as a fundamental right, if the 4th wasn't clear enough. Maybe update the 4th amendment to include digital/online. We shouldn't have "warrantless" anything.3) No foreign wars unless really, really, really necessary. No bullshiat "aid" or "CIA training operatives" or "arms sales" to random factions in random countries.4) Transparent government, if not to us citizens at least to Congress and our representatives.5) Break up bank monopolies (especially where a bank does both investment andpersonal banking). Bank monopolies are so anti-free market it's not even funny.6) stop war on drugs. actually, stop war on any idea. only declare war on countries, organizations, or groups. and then set some exit criteria7) balance the budget, work to reduce the debt. not just the deficit, but the debt.

But oh no, millions will die.

1) Liberal idea2) Liberal idea3) Liberal idea4) Universal idea (maybe some far right wingers would disagree)5) Liberal idea6) Liberal idea7) Universal idea (in the way that everyone says it is what they want but no one actually does anything truly about it except for some moderates like Clinton)

CheatCommando:This dwarfs them because a certain silliness erupted and was run with. Fully 80 percent of the comments (including some of mine) in here have nothing to do with the topic except in the most tenuous way. I would have to ask if you have even given the most cursory of readings of this thing if you feel that way.

Fair enough, here's my contribution:

IN WEST OLDUVAI, UGG BORN IN CAVEROOMON LUSH LANDSCAPE UGG SPEND TIME BEATING ROCKS TO MAKE BOOMHUNT SMALL GAME, COLLECT SEEDS AND NUTSUGG TRIBE MOVE OUT OF CAVE INTO GRASS HUT.ONE DAY AIR GET COLD, GREAT RIVER GO DRYTRIBE MAKE HUMAN SACRIFICE BUT STILL MANY DIEOTHER HOMINID ATTACK AND UGG GET HURTVILLAGE ELDER SAY "UGG, YOU MIGRATE TO EUROPE."

m00:mccallcl: Libertarian ideas are not worth dying for, and make no mistake: in order for them to be implemented even partway, millions would die.

A "partway" implementation of Libertarian ideas might be:

1) equalize wage tax and capital gains, remove all loopholes especially of the corporate variety. Make it easier to start a small business.2) No domestic spying - enshrine privacy as a fundamental right, if the 4th wasn't clear enough. Maybe update the 4th amendment to include digital/online. We shouldn't have "warrantless" anything.3) No foreign wars unless really, really, really necessary. No bullshiat "aid" or "CIA training operatives" or "arms sales" to random factions in random countries.4) Transparent government, if not to us citizens at least to Congress and our representatives.5) Break up bank monopolies (especially where a bank does both investment andpersonal banking). Bank monopolies are so anti-free market it's not even funny.6) stop war on drugs. actually, stop war on any idea. only declare war on countries, organizations, or groups. and then set some exit criteria7) balance the budget, work to reduce the debt. not just the deficit, but the debt.

But oh no, millions will die.

Because everyone butthurt over the way the US was treated them over the centuries would be like "hey, bygones be bygones let's be pals now" were we to suddenly "go libertarian"; aside from the fact that any of the so-called benefits of libertarianism can be found in other political philosophies that already have viable partisan infrastructures and haven't already been co-opted by a lot of other interests etc.

Few non-libertarians take the philosophy seriously because it's a very vague one that falls to shiat when applied in the real world in any manner libertarians would support.

mccallcl:Libertarian ideas are not worth dying for, and make no mistake: in order for them to be implemented even partway, millions would die.

A "partway" implementation of Libertarian ideas might be:

1) equalize wage tax and capital gains, remove all loopholes especially of the corporate variety. Make it easier to start a small business.2) No domestic spying - enshrine privacy as a fundamental right, if the 4th wasn't clear enough. Maybe update the 4th amendment to include digital/online. We shouldn't have "warrantless" anything.3) No foreign wars unless really, really, really necessary. No bullshiat "aid" or "CIA training operatives" or "arms sales" to random factions in random countries.4) Transparent government, if not to us citizens at least to Congress and our representatives.5) Break up bank monopolies (especially where a bank does both investment andpersonal banking). Bank monopolies are so anti-free market it's not even funny.6) stop war on drugs. actually, stop war on any idea. only declare war on countries, organizations, or groups. and then set some exit criteria7) balance the budget, work to reduce the debt. not just the deficit, but the debt.

Crotchrocket Slim:mmmk: whidbey: cybrwzrd: The whole idea of objectivism is that you have a right to work towards your own goals as long as you are not harming another through greed

But there are countless examples of big business corporations and individuals doing exactly that.

The current system isn't that vague. We have income tax and environmental laws. How, as a libertarian, would you justify keeping the statist structure in place to enforce those kinds of laws?

I maintain without the state, you can't enforce the laws.

To me and what seems to be market anarchists, the state isn't the court system, or the police, fire department etc.. The state is what allows the court and police jurisdiction over a given area. In my opinion, having competition even at that level is beneficial toward liberty. So we would allow Muslims their Sharia courts, and give people like Snowden an option of having an alternative court system locally instead of having to go to HK.

ME CROTCH THINKS HOW CANADA HANDLES "ABORIGINAL" RIGHTS IS STUPID. ME CROTCH NO WANT THAT IN SLIM TRIBE. WE LIKE TRUE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND EQUAL RIGHTS

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS FREEDOM TO WORSHIP SKY MAN AND SKY MAN SON IN WAY YOU LIKE ONLY. YOU NO HAVE RIGHT TO WORSHIP MOON MAN OR ANIMAL SPIRITS OR ANCESTORS INSTEAD. AND DEFINITELY NO HAVE RIGHT NOT TO WORSHIP AT ALL.

cybrwzrd:with as few laws as necessary to provide for a cohesive society

Like all reductionists, your ideas are naive. There is no magic bullet to find laws we don't need that aren't "load-bearing". We can't just start from scratch, there are 300 million people living here. If you fark up the system a little bit, you spread mass human suffering. The time for experimentation is past, it was the 18th century, and you are living in the grand experiment today. This is what we've got, unless you want another 100 million people to die in a war so we can get another different kind of government.

The stakes are too high for the kind of revolution you're looking for, and the payoff is low: so I can go buy whatever gun I want and shoot it into the air? So what? So I get to keep another 15% of my income? Big deal! The sort of people that would benefit from a revolution are dirt poor, and I never hear libertarians advocate for them, anyway.

Libertarian ideas are not worth dying for, and make no mistake: in order for them to be implemented even partway, millions would die. It's like changing what side of the road we drive on so everyone can get out on the curb side. 50,000 extra highway deaths the first year, and for what?

jigger:I guess I get it, but I kinda don't get it. When people begin discussing libertarianism, Ayn Rand sometimes becomes part of the conversation. Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and Objectivism is not libertarianism nor a form of it. She despised libertarians just like she despised most people.

There's a lot of overlap between both groups these days. That fact alone tells me how well informed and "deep" the people comprising both groups really are.

The label a lot of these Republicans-in-denial use is just "lipstick on a pig" basically.

jigger:I guess I get it, but I kinda don't get it. When people begin discussing libertarianism, Ayn Rand sometimes becomes part of the conversation. Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and Objectivism is not libertarianism nor a form of it. She despised libertarians just like she despised most people.

What didn't she despise? Money? Violence? Had she lived long enough to discover it, I think she would have liked gangsta rap.

jigger:I guess I get it, but I kinda don't get it. When people begin discussing libertarianism, Ayn Rand sometimes becomes part of the conversation. Ayn Rand was not a libertarian and Objectivism is not libertarianism nor a form of it. She despised libertarians just like she despised most people.

m00:I wasn't aware that the political ideology currently employed by Congress is so perfect, and there are so little problems with the country that so many people have the energy to build, and knockdown strawmen regarding an ideology which isn't practiced in government.

The concept of libertarianism is pretty easy to knock down. And yeah, society needs some form of government because people do tend to be selfish assholes who don't share with the community, or in many cases even acknowledge it.

RobertBruce:InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost. The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density. I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

Same as now, except without laws other than those that protect body and property.

So basically a 3rd world shiate hole? Gotcha.

What's your alternative:?

How about the opposite of Calcutta? Ever been there? You would love it.

No stupid government forcing you to pay for things like community housing, so the poor just sleep and shiat in the streets literally turning the entire city into a gigantic cesspool. No Obamacare, so the sick and dying just decompose out in the sun. No public policy, so malaria and AIDS just runs rampant. No major public projects, so limited public transportation leaving 15 million people living in a congested polluted mess.

Just everyone out there living their own lives, just totally free from the tyranny of government thugs.

That's a good start. Also, sounds like a good business opportunity to clean things up.

And to the surprise of no one, we once again find "libertarianism" being used as a thinly veiled disguise for sociopathy.

Do what you want so long as it does not harm others. Rand's own protagonist violates what you claim to be the central tenet of her philosophy and you want to defend it?

cybrwzrd:You obviously have never read any of the fiction or the books surrounding Objectivism

Oh I'd say he's read them, and properly recognized them as hackwork fiction, not anything to be taken seriously. Others on the other hand, are still fourteen year old boys rebelling against their parents while listening to Rush.

cybrwzrd:Ishkur: cybrwzrd: In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another.

You mean like blowing up a housing project or destroying civilization or raping women as a token of divine selfishness?

Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand and Objectivism:

What Ayn Rand did was simplify a complex network of economic theories, ideas, practices and human motives and constructed a mono-dimensional faux-reality as a vehicle to push her pulp. Then she filled it full of cardboard cutout characters and mary sue ubermensches who don't talk but lecture for tedious pages about why the rich and powerful have divine right to being rich and powerful. And of course things play out exactly the way her philosophy says because she's the author and she controls the farking outcome. In clear violation of every standard of ethics, politics, economics, reality, life, human nature, philosophy, and farking national train corporation management. It's dishonest, and it's wrong.

As an example of how wildly skewed her understanding of reality really was, just looked at how she twisted the Robin Hood fable. She called him the most evil fairytale hero in history because he stole from the producers to give to the moochers. On the contrary, Robin actually stole the people's taxes from the oppressive government and gave them back to the their rightful owners. He should be a Tea Party icon. I don't understand why she didn't look this up thoroughly enough. It was a bad allegory because it's heavily dependent on point of view.

The book's premise is ridiculous because NO ONE is so important that they think they can destroy the world by retreating from it. Nature abhors a vacuum. Everything important and meaningful that has ever been created -- from thoughts to ideas to products to technology to companies -- is instantly taught, copied, and spread around, effective ...

ME CROTCH SEE NO VALUE IN IDEAS THAT CAN'T BE TESTED OR FAIL WHEN APPLIED IN REAL WORLD. ME NO CARE ABOUT PHILOSOPHY THAT NO MAKES GOOD IDEAS FOR REAL WORLD.

Ishkur:cybrwzrd: In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another.

You mean like blowing up a housing project or destroying civilization or raping women as a token of divine selfishness?

Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand and Objectivism:

What Ayn Rand did was simplify a complex network of economic theories, ideas, practices and human motives and constructed a mono-dimensional faux-reality as a vehicle to push her pulp. Then she filled it full of cardboard cutout characters and mary sue ubermensches who don't talk but lecture for tedious pages about why the rich and powerful have divine right to being rich and powerful. And of course things play out exactly the way her philosophy says because she's the author and she controls the farking outcome. In clear violation of every standard of ethics, politics, economics, reality, life, human nature, philosophy, and farking national train corporation management. It's dishonest, and it's wrong.

As an example of how wildly skewed her understanding of reality really was, just looked at how she twisted the Robin Hood fable. She called him the most evil fairytale hero in history because he stole from the producers to give to the moochers. On the contrary, Robin actually stole the people's taxes from the oppressive government and gave them back to the their rightful owners. He should be a Tea Party icon. I don't understand why she didn't look this up thoroughly enough. It was a bad allegory because it's heavily dependent on point of view.

The book's premise is ridiculous because NO ONE is so important that they think they can destroy the world by retreating from it. Nature abhors a vacuum. Everything important and meaningful that has ever been created -- from thoughts to ideas to products to technology to companies -- is instantly taught, copied, and spread around, effectively buil ...

Damn man, you said it better than I could have, but I will add this. Rand claims to be a philosopher of some sort, but the counterarguments to almost every claim she makes can be found in philosophers centuries, or even in some cases, millenia before her. She shows no sign of actually engaging anything but a caricature of western thought prior to her and most of her ardent defenders are equally poorly read. They are in the position of thinking that the contest for greatest musician ever is a knockdown drag out fight between Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez.

Ishkur:cybrwzrd: In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another.

You mean like blowing up a housing project or destroying civilization or raping women as a token of divine selfishness?

Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand and Objectivism:...

That reminded me of the scene from Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon just demolishes the pseudo-intellectual that's bothering Minnie Driver.

NEEK NOT PAY ATTENTION SCOTUS. NEEK OWN IDEA FREEDOM BE USED AGAINST NEEK IN CITIZENS UNITEDROCK, SO NEEK VOICE BE EASILY DROWNED OUT BY BIG FREEDOM CHIEFS WHO LOVE THAT NEEK SHILL FOR. NEEK PLAN BACKFIRE. OR MAYBE NEEK JUST TOADIE.

NEEK FINE WITH CITIZENS UNITEDROCK GIVING MOUNTAINS OF ROCKS TO ANY GIVEN CHIEF. NEEK WANT TO SAY NEEK'S CAVE HAS NEW CHIEF.

CAVEMEN WITH BIG ROCKS DON'T LIKE NEEK, THEY LIKE BIG CAVE AND SUPPORT BOTH CAVEMEN TRYING TO BE CHIEF OF BIG CAVE.

cybrwzrd:Hence the need for laws to prevent things like that from happening.

Hence why libertarianism is trite platitude bullshiat for simpletons. Always sounds good in the text books and theory, and then you start giving real world examples and they say "Oh well, we would have laws that would cover that", over and over until it becomes really no different than our current society.

It may be an oxymoron to call myself this - but I think I am a progressive libertarian. I will always deeply believe that limited government is the best way to govern, with as few laws as necessary to provide for a cohesive society. I also understand that most people are greedy assholes and will abuse any political system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Due to this, there needs to be a safety net to prevent the powerful/rich from abusing the weak/poor. The powerful/rich also need to be prevented from gaining too much power by stacking the deck in their own favor by buying politicians - even if it means sky-high taxes to prevent massive wealth accumulation and policies that prevent intergenerational wealth transfer.

I know that the left tries to portray libertarianism as the belief system of right wing religious loonies and fascist-capitalists, but both of these groups want to use the rule of law to benefit their agenda. There is nothing libertarian about allowing looters of any group (in this case the investor class/corporate types and religious fanatics) to use the force of law to stack the deck in their favor. These people are no more Libertarian than Evangelicals are Christian. These types believe that freedom is the right to never be held accountable for doing the wrong thing as long as you benefit from doing the wrong thing. Rand herself would be against that - it is called irrational selfishness or greed.

In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another. If you are a liberal and you think that you know the actual philosophy behind Objectivism just from osmosis by reading about it as told by looter-objectivists (most "Libertarians", tea party members, facist-capitalists, etc) then you might as well have formed your opinions about Judasim as told by the Iranians. The whole idea of objectivism is that you have a right to work towards your own goals as long as you are not harming another through greed. Both of Rand's heroes were blue collar workers, both had to fight against oppressive business and political climates that wanted to profit off of their hard work. There is nothing wrong with wanting to profit off your own work. Hell, Galt quit his job because the company he worked for wanted to take the credit for his invention and not allow him to benefit from it. The books are about about as anti-corporate culture as the Communist Manifesto. The entire idea of stockholder right to profit over workers is just as collectivistic - and even more evil than "from each to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Mrtraveler01:Just because it's run by the private sector doesn't automatically mean it makes it better.

Ideally, when the private sector screws something up, they fail and are replaced by something better. No such option exists with government - especially not a government that subsidizes private sector screw-ups.

SordidEuphemism:bglove25: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: GROG USE COMPLEX SYSTEM OF SATIRE TO UNDERMINE SHINY ROCK WORSHIPERS, SMACK THEM ON HEAD WITH CLUB.

FORGET GROG. IT SLANT EYE CAVE.

GRUNG APPROVE POST REFER TO TALKY PICTURE.

GROG ONLY WATCH SHADOWS FROM PUPPETS ON CAVE WALLS MADE BY FIRE. GROG AFRAID OF GLOWING DISK IN SKY OUTSIDE OF CAVE AND WHAT HE TELL PEOPLE WHEN HE GO BACK INTO CAVE. GROG THINK IT MAY BE METAPHOR FOR KNOWLEDGE.

iawai:Mercutio74: FuzedBox: Libertarianism is not anarchy, nor even close to it. Sure there's anarcho-libertarianism, a form of libertarianism but they are not the majority. Libertarianism in and of it self does not want to abolish government; it wants to streamline it and prune the branches.

But let's face it. Libertarianism is a terrible idea. All it does is transfer power and resources to people with the most power and resources. Without governmental regulation and enforcement, there's no way an individual has any ability to move up in the world except by the grace of the people already in charge.

But let's face it. Statism is a terrible idea. All it does is transfer power and resources to people with the most power and resources. Without governmental regulation and enforcement, the rich and powerful have no ability to crush all the possible competition in the world.

So strip all those regulations and leave all the rich and powerful with the resources they already have! It'll all work itself out in no time, guys!

Also.Libertarians believe in ALL the same practical things everybody else does. (food safety, public services like fire dept. and EMT etc., any-all things that the government provides)....they just simply believe ALL these things can be done better and more efficiently by the private sector.

All the dumb "what does a libertarian do when his house catches fire?" is kinda stupid.

FuzedBox:Libertarianism is not anarchy, nor even close to it. Sure there's anarcho-libertarianism, a form of libertarianism but they are not the majority. Libertarianism in and of it self does not want to abolish government; it wants to streamline it and prune the branches.

But let's face it. Libertarianism is a terrible idea. All it does is transfer power and resources to people with the most power and resources. Without governmental regulation and enforcement, there's no way an individual has any ability to move up in the world except by the grace of the people already in charge.

FuzedBox:Libertarianism is not anarchy, nor even close to it. Sure there's anarcho-libertarianism, a form of libertarianism but they are not the majority. Libertarianism in and of it self does not want to abolish government; it wants to streamline it and prune the branches.

/You guys are sure acting like the open-minded people you claim to be.//Smug assholes.///Don't want to live on this planet anymore.

As I said, there is nothing funnier than seeing a Libertarian react to the world giving their theory the intellectual respect it deserves. It's fully as idealistic and unfounded in the realities of nature as Marxism is, as someone else noted in the serious fraction of this thread.

You've got a point there, but an even bigger problem is disorganization. Infighting amongst American lefties is every bit as much of a tradition as baseball and apple pie.

The American left reminds me of the Palestinians. The only thing the Palestinians hate worse than the Israelis is each other. The difficult task in a multicultural democracy is not the generation of new ideas or new perspectives but the building of consensus. But it much more fun to fight. :-( So we get the government we deserve.

Ed Grubermann:RobertBruce: Ed Grubermann: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost. The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density. I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

Same as now, except without laws other than those that protect body and property.

A polluted shiathole full of untested and dangerous goods? Sounds like paradise.

Kind of like now... or do you actually think the FDA is ethically run?

Well, not since big business interests gutted it, no. How is that a point in your favor?

The basic take away is that left to itself businesses will massively abuse their customers, when government regulates initially it will do a moderately good job, so people will start to ignore it, so businesses will take the chance to try and corrupt/bypass the regulatory body. Things get bad so political pressure is put on the government to improve it, and for a while it will improve again and close loopholes, etc.

The problem in the US is that one side has decided government can't do anything right, so there is no pressure on government agencies from either those voters or those politicians to make them better, so they will be worse than the equivalent in a well functioning political system where you aren't electing people who are incentivized to make government perform as badly as possible because it supports their political position and weakens the opposition.

Zerochance:Zerochance: This image has been making the rounds in FB, being spread around by Paultards and other sorts of faux libertarians, and it encapsulates why their ideology is so hard for me to take seriously to the point where it just thoroughly annoys me.

Because it's based on hyperbole, naivete, and historical revisionism. The modern libertarians are the biggest, most myopic, whiny pussies in the political spectrum. You have to be a gigantic dick to equate the plight of Syrians, who are being systematically wiped out by their government to your perceived God-given right to own any weapon you goddamn please. Not to mention you are not some kind of silent majority - a lot of gun-owning Americans support background checks and understand that fully automatic rifles are not hunting weapons.

Modern libertarianism is for the kind of selfish, egotistical malcontents that simply cannot stand living in any sort of communal, symbiotic society. The kind of assholes that complain about Stop signs being Big Government's way to tell them when to move. I'm sure there are Libertarians that are sensible, rational, and toe the balance between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism rather well, but the most vocal Libertarians, the ones that are waving the flag are just apathetic, cynical dicks who want to justify their ethical failings (social darwinism, racism, etc.) by labeling it an ideology.

[img.photobucket.com image 500x358]

Re-post for HTML fail.

Yep, dumb-ass image macros are literally all they have left. They ceased trying to convince any converts years ago, and now only talk to themselves.

worlddan:It might be a childish fantasy but at least it is coherent and consistent within itself.

Methinks you might want to check out the Old Testament vs the New Testament. Christianity basically takes Genesis, Ten Commandments from Exodus, skips everything else and goes right to the New Testament. Reason being all the inconsistencies within the bible. They are only "consistent" because of what they choose to ignore. Much like libertarianism.

Z-clipped:worlddan: The libertarian idea is the only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years.

Ok. I can't read the article because I cannot stop laughing at that sentence. History. bad memories. repetition. and all that.

There are quite a few more guffaw-worthy moments, if you press on. Like this one:

Lind sees it differently. "If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn't libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried."What an odd standard. You know what else is a complete failure? Time travel. After all, it's never succeeded anywhere!

This image has been making the rounds in FB, being spread around by Paultards and other sorts of faux libertarians, and it encapsulates why their ideology is so hard for me to take seriously to the point where it just thoroughly annoys me.

Because it's based on hyperbole, naivete, and historical revisionism. The modern libertarians are the biggest, most myopic, whiny pussies in the political spectrum. You have to be a gigantic dick to equate the plight of Syrians, who are being systematically wiped out by their government to your perceived God-given right to own any weapon you goddamn please. Not to mention you are not some kind of silent majority - a lot of gun-owning Americans support background checks and understand that fully automatic rifles are not hunting weapons.

Modern libertarianism is for the kind of selfish, egotistical malcontents that simply cannot stand living in any sort of communal, symbiotic society. The kind of assholes that complain about Stop signs being Big Government's way to tell them when to move. I'm sure there are Libertarians that are sensible, rational, and toe the balance between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism rather well, but the most vocal Libertarians, the ones that are waving the flag are just apathetic, cynical dicks who want to justify their ethical failings (social darwinism, racism, etc.) by labeling it an ideology.

hinten nailed it upthread: Christians are the ones who constantly loudly proclaim their membership while failing to live up to the tenets of their belief system. (Which was probably the double-reverse sex panther troll that PN was going for in the first place.)

But at least Christians have a coherent belief system. It might be a childish fantasy but at least it is coherent and consistent within itself. Libertarianism is incoherent, self-contradictory, and self refuting. It is a label stuck on gibberish, of people jabbering imprecisions, it a mass of intellectual vomit, it is anti-intellectualism masquerading as a set of ideas. It is a trick, a lie, and a damnable whore.

sendtodave:Rabbitgod: IF URGGRA MAY INTERJECT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT BOTH PARTIES RUNNING FOR BIG CAVE ARE DESIGNED TO DIVIDE US AROUND PROBLEMS THAT HAVE NO REAL SOLUTION. URGGRA SUGGEST WE FORM THIRD PARTY TO RUN FOR BIG CAVE THAT WILL FOCUS ON COMMON SENSE AND PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS TO SOLVABLE PROBLEMS SUCH AS THE LACK OF WARM FUR AND WOOD FOR FIRE IN THE WINTER. IF WE WORK TOGETHER THEN WE CAN DRAMATICALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FELLOW CAVEMEN WHO FREEZE TO DEATH.

A million years ago, May 17, 998020 B.C., man's remote ancestors, the Hominids, roamed the Savannahs of Africa. Of course, it would be easy to make fun of these precursors of modern man for their brutish appearance and sloppy eating habits, but we should remember that someday we too will have descendents much more advanced than ourselves. What will they think of today's hamburger "joints" and "mod" Carnaby Street clothes? It is with this sense of humility that we present tonight's docu-historama on: THE HOMINIDS.

Vlad_the_Inaner:griffer: No you are tiresome in this bizarre 'caveman' dialect which it actually a thinly disguised mockery of people with learning disabilities. Like a mental handicap black face. You should be proud.

Geico_Angry_Caveman.jpg

Nothing is funnier than seeing a Libertarian reacting to the world treating their "philosophy" with the intellectual respect it deserves.

griffer:Oh for the love of Rand! You jackanapes are a disgrace. Terrible, horrible stupidity. Like a bunch of circle jerling monkeys, egging each other on by lobbing feces. Congratulations on your total regression. Join Scientology now, and give up your brain entirely. No wonder we are doomed. I am so glad I have chosen to not procreate and protect my progeny from this decay.

Pocket Ninja:Libertarians are the atheists of the political world, in that many of them will loudly and frequently tell you they are that thing, but a very small percentage of them -- a miniscule amount, really -- actually know what being that thing means. Most of them have chosen to self-label as a reaction to something else, not out of conscious selection, and almost none of them can identify more than the most patently obvious truisms about their "chosen" belief system. They know what they've been told, or what they've read about being told, and that's about it.

Hey, as an Atheist who can't stand libertarians I... agree. There does seem to be a bit less "No True Scotsmanship" lame rationalization going on among atheists though, but it's still bad enough as it is.

Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost. The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density. I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

IF VARG LEAVE HERE WHEN SUN RISEWOULD TRIBE REMEMBER HIM?VARG MUST TREK BEYOND THE MOUNTAINS AND SEASTO SEE THE LAND BEYOND THE SETTING SUNIF VARG STAYED WITH CAVEWOMANTIME WOULD NOT PASS LIKE IN DAYS OF OLDVARG IS FREE LIKE PTERODACTYLAND PTERODACTYL NOT EVOLVE.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:Libertarianism isn't even an ideal. It's a fantasy world, populated by raw milk fanatics who want to pay for everything in gold bars, and career college kids who just want free weed.

Our country was founded by classic liberals, commonly known as libertarians today. Moronic article. Don't like raw milk? How about GMO labeling? They're one in the same. The freedom to choose what you put into your own body. Most libertarians that I know want sound money, like Ben Franklins Colonial Script. The ideals of freedom persevered for a long time in the country... Nowadays, it's an abused word that progressives and neocons use to describe their entitlements and warmongering.

CHOCK DESERVES CHOCK'S ROCKS. CHOCK WORK HARD FOR CHOCK'S ROCKS. CHOCK NOT HAVE SO MANY ROCKS FROM BEING BORN ON ROCKPILE IN MOUNTAINS, BUT THROUGH HARD WORK. FILTHY PLAINS CAVEMENT SHOULD GET TO WORK FINDING ROCKS IF THEY WANT THEM, NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT CHOCK BEING BORN WHERE THERE ARE MANY ROCKS.

GROG NO WANT ROCKS TO GO TO TEACHING CARVINGS TO CAVES YOUNG ONES. GROG GIVE ROCKS FOR OTHERS TO TEACH CARVINGS TO HIS YOUNG ONES. GROG WANT CAVE TO GIVE HIM BACK ROCKS FOR TEACHING HIS YOUNG ONES ABOUT HOW MAMMOTH AND STEGOSAURUS LIVE TOGETHER BEFORE TIME OF GREAT DYING.

Grand_Moff_Joseph:verbaltoxin: Grand_Moff_Joseph: verbaltoxin: James F. Campbell: verbaltoxin: Well they would, because most people would group together socially and form an organization. That organization would then pick leaders, and those leaders would come up with some form of charter, so everyone has the same rules. Then they'd pick people to argue over and interpret those rules, and form another group to decide new rules as necessary for unforseen issues. Eventually, each group's organization would decide it's better if multiple groups create one, larger overseeing body so that multiple groups have the same rules and can resolve disputes between each other.

Which of these stages is Somalia in?

YOU NO READ GOOD, NO READ OTHER POST, YOU GET ROCK ON HEAD.

UGG HAVE IDEA - NO SELL ROCK ON HEAD, PERFORM FIVE STICKS OF DOOM. YOU BE FAMOUS CAVEMAN, SELL MANY SOUVENIER PELTS. LITTLE CAVEJIMMIES WILL LOVE YOU

DAG LIKE UGG'S IDEA. DAG NO-SELL ROCKS AND SELL PELTS. FOR THE TROOPS.

CHOCK WORKS FOR LIBERTARIANS. SO CHOCK IS GETTING KICK OUT OF REPLIES ON THIS TABLET. MANY CAVEMEN THINK THEY HAVE KNOWING OF LIBERTARIANISM, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE TRUST IN CHOCK THAT YOU DO NOT. YOU JUST ALL TRYING TO SOUND SMARTLIKE WHILE YOU NOT KNOW WHAT TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS HOW THINGS THAT NOT TRUE GET PASSED TO OTHERS. IF YOU NO KNOW ABOUT WHAT WE TALK ABOUT, DO NOT MAKE SELF SOUND LIKE YOU DO. REASON THAT SOME CAVEMEN BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY HEAR.

verbaltoxin:There are many failed states where this occurred, but they didn't set out to be libertarian societies in the Western world. I'm saying in our society, if we tried to have libertarianism, we'd end up right back where we are now, eventually.

True. However, what makes the West like this is not just its values, it is having the luxury of wealth/resources. Take away your Government and your natural inclination will be to rebuild Government. Take away Americans, Government/wealth/resources and it might be a different ball game.

In any case, the policies that Libertarians really support our more about Corporatism. They want the stability of society but don't realize that they are basically asking to be governed by corporations instead of elected officials. Of course, you can already argue that elected officials are already controlled by corporations.

You guys, I'm dying here. I'm sitting at my desk with my guts hurting from holding in the laughter trying desperately to keep my shoulders from shaking from suppressed guffaws. My face is turning red and tears are running down my face from it all.

Tyrone Slothrop:what_now: lockers: It has more in common with Thomas Jefferson than any current political ideology:

The bootstrappy guy with all the slaves?

Libertarianism only works if you have an army of slaves:[www.angryflower.com image 790x416]

THIS AM THROG GALT. ALL YOU IN CAVES LISTEN TO PEOPLE IN CAVES, YOU GIVE ROCKS TO PEOPLE WITH NO ROCKS. ME HAVE ROCKS, BUT ROCKS NOT IMPORTANT. ME HAVE IDEAS OF ROCKS, MAKE ME BETTER, PAY ROCKS TO OTHER PEOPLE BUT THEY OWE ME FOR ROCK IDEAS. ME MAKE FIRE. WATCH CAVES BURN WHILE I HAVE ALL ROCKS.

verbaltoxin:mrshowrules: is an ideal of the greedy and self serving suggesting that left to their own, people will look after each other

Well they would, because most people would group together socially and form an organization. That organization would then pick leaders, and those leaders would come up with some form of charter, so everyone has the same rules. Then they'd pick people to argue over and interpret those rules, and form another group to decide new rules as necessary for unforseen issues. Eventually, each group's organization would decide it's better if multiple groups create one, larger overseeing body so that multiple groups have the same rules and can resolve disputes between each other.

That, or it just becomes a hellscape of torture, rape diseases, famine and murder. It really can go either way.

BROK HELP UGG. BROK PACKAGE MANY CAVE INTO CONSTRUCT BROK CALL CREDIT ROCK SWAP. VERY SIMPLE. UGG AND CAVE OWNER PAY BROK ROCKS, IF CAVE COLLAPSE THEN BROK STILL KEEPS ROCKS AND TAKE YOUR WOMAN IF STILL ALIVE. IT VERY COMPLICATED. SIGN HERE. YOU NOT GO BROKE WITH BROK.

BUT WHAT IF CAVES LOSE VALUE AND UGG NEED TO MOVE LATER. UGG NO MOVE IF CAVE WORTH NOTHING. THIS SMELL LIKE SCAM

lockers:Libertarianism is the most misunderstood of all political philosophies. It has more in common with Thomas Jefferson than any current political ideology: Individualism, personal accountability, enterprise and discovery. What conservatism and liberalism have discarded in their race to bury the age of enlightenment, libertarianism seeks to restore. The problem is people need such an affront to care that we are lead into the dark recesses by both the progressives and the conservatives.

THAG DISLIKE WORD WITH PUNY LETTERS. YOU MUST BE MAN WHO AFRAID TO MATE WITH SMILODON. WHY YOU HATE FREEDOM?